I would go further and say it's a problem of totalitarianism. If there was 'real' democracy, capitalist or otherwise, the people would be able to
control over the government. That isn't the case with totalitarianism, which invariably degenerates into thugism, and it isn't the case in US any
more.

If the government has become more and more responsible for the amount of spending in this country over the years - yet the disparity of wealth between
the upper and lower class has grown more and more over the years, how is it logical to conclude that more government will equalize this disparity?

Consider that government is responsible for 40% of all spending in this nation.

Since the top 1% of all wealth is held by a handful of individuals, it stands to reason that government must be handing all that money they are
spending to that top 1%.

Thus we can say government is responsible for the wealth disparity - not the markets.

Hence, why privatization or nationalization just leads to the same injustice... It is a problem inherent to capitalism.

Saying that capitalism leads to injustice is no different than saying allowing people to peacefully trade their property with each other leads to
injustice.

I find it is a common misconception that people think we have free markets in this country.

Of course, we don't.

Thus the assumption that free markets lead to our current state of affairs is a fallacy.

It is impossible to have free markets when you have a federal reserve system, fiat currency laws, and a government that is responsible for 40% of all
spending done annually.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Who would assume that free markets lead to this? That is crazy!

Nice strawman, btw.

No, the issues we have today stems from the very fact that economies propped up by the abuse and enslavement of indigenous peoples via colonialism
created the need for "constant growth" otherwise markets stagnate and voila, we have what we see today.

This recession is about redistribution of wealth and we have deregulation to thank for it.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Something for the socialists to consider:

If the government has become more and more responsible for the amount of spending in this country over the years - yet the disparity of wealth between
the upper and lower class has grown more and more over the years, how is it logical to conclude that more government will equalize this disparity?

If something like that had happened in my community, my people(Mohawk) would be storming the police station the next day demanding answers. Many years
ago we had a violent police force. The traditional people got together one day, went to the police station and took their guns away from them. The New
York State Police stood by and watched. Later, many of the people that participated in dis-arming the police were charged with federal conspiracy
charges. Today, our police department knows better.

As offended as I am by the criminal activity in the video, I am more offended by individuals that believe speech can justify physical harm. Especially
when such an act happens in a Country that touts itself as having "free speech".

I have news for some of you, "All are equal under the law". This includes "law enforcement". In no form is it lawful to inflict bodily harm on an
individual because you don't like the words coming out of their mouth.

Shame on some of you for serving as apologist for blatantly heinous criminal activity.

Not only are you clearly opposed to free speech but you are also opposed to due process and clearly support cruel and unusual punishment. Are their
any human rights that you do value?

I don't see the problem mnemeth, they beat him, and he sued. Isn't that the way you want all laws to work? Someone does something to harm you and so
you sue them. That's all that should happen in your world right? You kill someone, so the victims families only has the option of suing you.

So in your anarchist world this is perfectly acceptable behavior. It's the world you want to live in mnemeth, why aren't you supporting this? I
would think you would be happy, it's your ideal societal construct at work.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Something for the socialists to consider:

If the government has become more and more responsible for the amount of spending in this country over the years - yet the disparity of wealth between
the upper and lower class has grown more and more over the years, how is it logical to conclude that more government will equalize this disparity?

Consider that government is responsible for 40% of all spending in this nation.

Since the top 1% of all wealth is held by a handful of individuals, it stands to reason that government must be handing all that money they are
spending to that top 1%.

Thus we can say government is responsible for the wealth disparity - not the markets.

Well, this disparity has also followed the era of tickle down theory being interjected into
government. Mixing some small portions of free market ideology, for example; the tax rates - which use to be 90% (upper 1%) during Eisenhower's time.
This trend, which is in line with your thinking more than mine has increased more and more over time, the upper 1% keeps getting wealthier. The idea
that this money will be invested in new jobs
is NOT taking hold here as theory prescribes.

You might notice the tax rates appear to be lowest when we are in deep crap as a nation... One might say the effect is opposite, which I may be too
stupid to comprehend , fair enough. However this drive to put taxes on the floor keeps getting ramped up
and things are not improving. The Wealthy have a lighter burden then before, therefore they accumulate more money and that makes sense to me, however
you state that the
obvious cause and effect is not related, that does not make sense.

1923
President Warren Harding dies in office. Calvin Coolidge, becomes president. Coolidge is no less committed to laissez-faire and a non-interventionist
government.
Supreme Court nullifies minimum wage for women in District of Columbia.
1924
The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation to the rest of the economy.
1925
The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in the eight decades since World War I.

EVEN if the victim was saying outrageous things on the phone, then he should have been charged with abusive language, threatening behaviour, threats
to kill, conspiracy to commit crime or whatever else would fit.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT HAPPENED.

No legal excuse at any rate, the copper should not only be fired, but should also be brought up on charges of grievous bodily harm, or even attempted
murder.

If the DA won't go for it, if i were the victim, i'd go for a private prosecution.

There is NEVER an excuse to treat people this way, in these circumstances, regardless of whatever he said or didn't say on the phone.

Blimey, where did you get your knowledge of the law? History books on the policing methods of the third Reich?!

What the cop did was and is illegal, despite the kind of society you may personally desire.

Originally posted by Xiamara
I'm going to say there is no audio so for all we know the man on the phone could be verbally assaulting the cop.

Alright, first after watching the video my jaw is on the floor. I thought the video was about the guy on the ground and when he grabs the head of the
person on the phone on the sidewalk and slams him to the pavement I'm just thinking "What??? Seriously???".

Look up verbal assault -- there has to be an overt action - words are not enough. Despite that - I thought there were supposed to be rules for how to
do this - the police officer is supposed to give verbal orders and explain the reason for the arrest as he clearly didn't give reason to suspect a
violent reaction. Can you imagine what it would be like to have an unpaid parking ticket warrant and the police officer come to your door knock and
when you answer he immediately choke holds you to the ground for "resisting arrest". I see no difference here.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.